Title: Developing Across Boundaries – mentor and mentee perceptions and experiences of cross-organisational mentoring.

Authors: Irene Mains, HRM/HRD Lecturer, Programme Leader for International Business and HRM, i.mains@gcu.ac.aukSamantha MacLean, Senior Lecturer, HRM, samantha.maclean@gcu.ac.auk

Stream: 7: Leadership, Management and Talent Development

Type: Working Paper

1

Abstract:

Purpose: The research aim was to explore factors influencing the operation of a cross

organisational mentoring initiative which was created to support leadership development

thereby providing participant views on the perceived success of the initiative.

Design/methodology/approach: The research is inductive in nature and uses an exploratory

approach via a 2 stage qualitative analysis. The qualitative data was gathered via interviews

with the founding partners and questionnaires distributed to all managers involved in the

initiative – mentors and mentees - at the outset of the initiative and one year later. Emergent

implications were then drawn upon to inform organisational practice and the future design

and operation of further cross organisational mentoring programmes.

Findings: Emergent themes revealed that criterion based matching informed by the specific

knowledge of organisational leads was deemed effective while support from senior

management was paramount at all stages. Clear personal and professional objective setting

was vital at the outset of the mentoring relationship to help frame initial discussion; however

a degree of fluidity occurred as the mentoring relationship went on. It was also found that

cross organisational mentoring may provide more of a holistic opportunity for self- reflection

and exploration outside the organisational parameters set. Findings indicated that adequate

time to develop awareness of different policies, practices and cultures across the partner

organisations, was required. Developing a comfortable and trusting environment for the

relationship was viewed as vital for success; and guidance, training and a meeting framework

was helpful to assist this. Indeed, participants noted that a mechanism for wider cohort

communication, reflection and feedback at intervals in the process would have been useful

also.

2

Research limitations/implications: It is recognised that wider generalisations are limited;

the initiative would require replication with a number of different participants to increase

validity. However as the research is exploratory in nature there is value in the initial research

and provides potential for replication within other organisations.

Practical implications: The research provides a number of useful themes which

practitioners could use to explore the creation of a cross-organisational mentoring scheme

and provides benchmarking indicators.

Originality/value: That this is an innovative approach to leadership development can be seen

in the limited literature and theory related to cross organisational mentoring as a leadership

development tool that the design team, a partnership of HR academics and HRD

professionals, were able to access.

Keywords: Mentoring; Cross-organisational; leadership development; HRD

3

Introduction

This paper discusses the findings from exploratory research into an innovative HRD

programme providing cross organisational formal mentoring. This programme involved

middle managers from two public sector organisations, a local authority and a health board,

and a private sector organisation, a high street bank; being matched with one another as

mentors and mentees depending on development needs. The organisations already had well

established in-house mentoring programmes but were keen to offer an alternative/ addition to

this leadership development strategy.

The paper firstly discusses the rationale for this programme, in particular exploring why

employers may engage in this particular form of leadership development and learning. The

methodology utilised is then discussed. Through a two stage analysis of the stakeholder

perceptions, using qualitative enquiry, four key themes are explored, starting with analysis of

planning, preparation and maintenance of the initiative, including the matching process,

mentor characteristics, content of the first mentoring meeting and consideration of which

party drives the mentoring partnership. Organisational support factors are then considered;

followed by analysis of the mentoring relationship in relation to the length, which factors

assisted in the development of the relationship and the challenges experienced. Next, the

outcomes of the Cross Organisational Mentoring Initiative (COMI) are discussed including

mentor and mentee perceptions of the benefits achieved individually and for their

organisation as a whole. Finally we conclude with lessons for the HRD profession on how to

develop such programmes, recognising the importance of thorough planning, a robust

matching exercise, expectation setting and levels of commitment. Consideration of future

research direction is also provided.

4

The Research Problem

There is considerable research on mentoring with organisations increasingly utilising

mentoring to “address the cognitive, interpersonal and technological needs of employees”

(Homitz and Berge, 2008:327). The business organisational case for mentoring has been

made with benefits such as increased staff commitment, job satisfaction and retention being

found (Allen, Eby, Poteet et al, 2004; Payne and Huffman, 2005). Furthermore, three key

stakeholders benefit from mentoring. Firstly, mentees develop their knowledge and skills,

develop networks and build confidence, all of which contribute to their career development;

secondly, mentors benefit from the satisfaction of passing on their knowledge and expertise;

and, the organisation benefits because of the impact on commitment and engagement

(Clutterbuck, 2004).

Formal mentoring programmes include one to one- to-one mentoring, peer mentoring, or

group mentoring (Day 2001, McCauley and Douglas 2004). With hierarchical mentoring

“when junior colleagues inform senior colleagues of their needs and experiences” (Thomas,

Willis and Davis 2007: 178) being the most common form. However, Higgins and Kram

(2001) present a developmental network perspective that suggests that protégés may gather

career and psychosocial support from several interconnected individuals, that is “the set of

people a protégé names as taking an active interest in and action to advance his career by

providing developmental assistance” (Higgins and Kram 2001: 568). This approach presents

a viable alternative to the traditional one of a single focal mentor. Indeed Higgins and Kram

(2001) and Higgins and Thomas (2001) emphasise that such multiple mentoring relationships

can cross organisational hierarchies and indeed extend beyond the boundaries of the

organisation itself. Dobrow and Higgins (2005) state that such developmental networks can

particularly help individuals to construct their own professional identities as a result of the

mutual trust, interdependence and reciprocity within the network and exposure to a range of

5

role models. This multiple model of mentoring complements the increasing mobility of

individuals, with the job-for-life career an increasing rarity.

In recognising the accepted value of mentoring as a developmental tool the organisations

wished to explore a wider application of mentoring through a cross organisational approach.

The key business aim of this COMI partnership initiative was to create organisational

benefits, through building hard and soft knowledge and confidence in skills, utilising an

innovative and cost-effective approach to leadership development. The initiative would allow

participants to benchmark and network across other organisations and sectors. Furthermore it

would encourage increased cultural and business awareness of partner organisations, and the

exploration of different perspectives; as well as providing a catalyst for both mentors and

mentees to develop deeper organisational and individual self-exploration and reflection.

The research aim was to explore factors influencing the development and operation of cross

organisational mentoring, identify any challenges faced, and evaluate the success and

limitations of cross organisational mentoring to inform organisational practice and further

cross organisational mentoring programmes.

Methodology

The aim was to critically evaluate the cross-organisational mentoring programme from a

range of stakeholder perspectives. Using an action research (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill,

2009) methodology, the authors adopted an interpretivist approach (Creswell, 1998) as they

wished to gain an insight into the feelings and thoughts of the programme’s participants.

Whilst primarily qualitative, the researchers also required baseline and demographic data, to

build future empirical research as well as enhance future iterations of the programme

development. Data was collected from key informants; the organisational leads (all were

OD/HRD practitioners), as well as mentors and mentees from the three participant

6

organisations. The data collection explored their perceptions on the creation and execution of

the initiative thus providing views on its perceived success and personal impact.

Questionnaires were issued at two stages across a calendar year, gaining a more longitudinal

perspective of the initiative (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2009). At the outset of the

initiative, questionnaires were distributed by Survey Monkey, to all mentor and mentee

participants to determine initial reactions to the matching and first meeting of the mentee and

mentor; and then again, one year later to ascertain specific views on the mentoring

relationship; perceptions on how the relationship developed, any challenges encountered as

well as consideration of key outcomes of the COMI. Interviews were also held with the

organisational leads; however this paper focuses only on mentor and mentee views. All 25

mentees and 25 mentors were invited to complete both the initial and the subsequent

questionnaire online via Survey Monkey. For the initial questionnaire response rates were

high with 76% of mentors and 52% of mentees responding, while the second questionnaire

yielded equal responses from both mentors and mentees at 60% for both groups. Utilising an

interpretative-qualitative approach (Maxwell, 2013) four key themes were identified from the

questionnaire response choices and associated open question narratives of the participants.

The four themes are: planning, preparation and maintenance; organisational support;

relationships; and outcomes. Each of these are discussed below.

7

Analysis and discussion of findings

Theme 1: Planning, preparation and maintenance

Many authors recognise formal mentoring programmes as a strategic HRD tool to support a

variety of activities from attraction to career development (See Allen, Eby and Lentz, 2006,

Blake-Beard, 2001; Sosik, Lee and Bouquillon, 2005). However, there is still concern

regarding the operation and subsequent impact of such structured interventions (Eby and

Lockwood, 2005). Indeed Morrison, Piip and Short (2013) argue that mentoring programmes

can be placed on a continuum starting with limited, indeed lacking, organisational support to

more formalised and structured programmes. Furthermore, Zachary (2005) stresses the need

for executive commitment. Whilst Boags (2004) identifies four phases to formal programmes

including secure support, start up, implementation and monitoring/ evaluation. With Blake-

Beard, O’Neill and McGowan (2008) Eby and Lockwood (2005) highlight the challenging

role of matching mentors and mentees, with the latter noting that aspects such as dyad

mismatch, personality clashes or misunderstanding related to perceived expertise and

seniority are often seen to be pivotal in mentoring relationship success or failure.

In this study respondents reported that key aspects of planning and preparation (the first two

stages of Boags’ (2004) approach) were important including the matching process, the

mentor characteristics, the initial meeting and expectations and views on who should drive

the process.

The Matching Process

The matching process was a key feature within the initiative and was recognised as a key

element in the process. All three organisational leads were keen to ensure that a structured

approach was adopted for the matching process; thus echoing the perspective of Chao (2007)

8

who argued that formal programmes place more emphasis on relationship formation. That

matching is an essential element is recognised by Dominguez and Hager (2013) who note that

changes to the power dynamics of mentoring since the early research of Levinson (1978) and

Kram (1983) mean it is essential to ensure an appropriate fit between the two parties. A view

reinforced by P-Sontag, Vappie and Wanberg (2008) and Blake-Beard et al (2008) who note

the matching of mentor and mentee is a pivotal stage in the process. Matching in the

participating organisations was ‘administrator’ focussed (Blake-Beard et al, 2008), that is

driven by an organisational representative, utilising variables such as mentees’ developmental

needs against mentors previous experience in similar areas/ situations; mentees’ learning

goals, both participants’ learning styles and personality (based on knowledge of organisation

leads), as well as more pragmatic aspects such as geography and internal mentoring load of

the mentor partner.

In contrast to the adopted approach Wanberg, Welsh and Hezlett, (2003) and Allen, Eby and

Lentz (2006) argue that mentees should have a clear input on mentor choice to encourage

mentee acceptance and engagement. However this was not seen to be the case in the primary

research with 60% of mentees and 60% of mentors claiming that they would not have liked to

choose their own partner, noting that; “An independent match meant that neither had

‘chosen’ the other so we were on a level playing field” (Bank Mentor) and thus there was

some equality in the relationship. A second mentor respondent felt that “my view has always

been that such matches should be voluntary but in this case we were independently matched

very well” (NHS Mentor). Whilst a mentee respondent believed that the external matching

process prevented them being influenced by any preconceptions as it “offered a degree of

anonymity to the process” (Council Mentee).

9

The participants seemed to be more interested in the professional background of their mentor

and how this would impact on them with initial concerns regarding sectoral background

being raised; and in practice this provided to be both positive and negative, as seen

respectively from the mentee comments below;

“My mentor does not have the same professional background as I have. Prior to first meeting

I did wonder how this would work. However, it was a perfect relationship” (Council Mentee)

“Whilst on paper we were matched well, when we met up our experiences were very different

and it was difficult to get some common threads” (NHS Mentee)

However in terms of matching effectiveness, 91% of all mentors and mentees rated the

matching positively overall, with one mentee stating “Thanks for finding me a great mentor!”

(Bank Mentee)

In considering how the independent matching had impacted their relationship, the following

key aspects were identified as being positive:

Figure 1: Matching factors that impacted on the relationship

10

Thus the factors used by the OD/HRD Leads to create the matches such as learning styles,

previous mentoring experience, learning objectives and anecdotal knowledge of mentor and

mentee personality were also recognised as matching factors which impacted on the

relationship, as the partners came together.

The findings suggest a reluctance to self-select perhaps because individuals perceived a lack

of knowledge of partners, a feeling that they themselves were not best placed to make such

choices and that it was better for OD/HRD leads to use knowledge of participants for

mapping. Thus the role of the organisational lead was vital in matching – combining

knowledge of mentee and their needs and of mentor experiences and capabilities. This

mirrors the views of Boags (2004) and Hegstad and Wentling (2005) who argue that

programme administrators are well placed to match mentors and mentees as they not only

know the participants but also have insight into organisational goals; this may be of particular

significance given the cross organisational context and the initial worries regarding sectoral

knowledge.

Mentor Characteristics

All respondents were asked to identify the relative importance of key characteristics of the

mentor; results for the whole sample are shown below. Overall, the experience and skill of

the mentor were thought to be more important mentor characteristics, rather than seniority.

11

Figure 2: Rating of mentor characteristics

This challenges some of the seminal literature which refers to the relationship being between

a senior and more experienced member (mentor) for a younger, inexperienced member

(mentee) (Bauer 1999), however this tends to refer to mentoring within rather than across

organisations. That the cross organisational mentoring is seen as more of a developmental

model (Higgins and Kram, 2001), rather than a hierarchical and directive model (Thomas,

Willis and Davis, 2007) may explain these preferences. Further, Poulsen (2006) argues that

having a ‘learning alliance’ focus on the relationship takes focus away from the “who” of the

mentor to the “what” i.e. the experience and how that can be utilised in the relationship;

indeed the cross organisational focus may also have changed views on seniority as the

relationship was not focussed on career progression through sponsorship for example coupled

with the fact that seniority labelling may be difficult to align between the different

organisations. Also, as suggested by Klasen and Clutterbuck (2002) a UK model of

mentoring favours the view that relevant experience is more important. To manage

expectations of the mentees the primary research findings suggest that a consideration of

12

individual perception on preferred mentor characteristics should feature in the pre

relationship work/matching to manage expectations

Other aspects that were explored under planning, preparation and maintenance were the use

of objective setting in the initial meeting and a view on who should drive the relationship,

which is discussed next.

The Initial Meeting

Armstrong, Allinson and Hayes (2002) argue that a focus on the mentees needs leads to

development of methods best suited to the individual rather than having a pre- determined

approach to the relationship.

A number of key issues were identified as being discussed during the first meeting as

outlined in the table below with objective setting recognised by the majority:

Figure 3: Factors discussed at first meeting

Generally participants felt that where there was an initial discussion, focussed on objectives

of both partners, there was a clearer sense of what was important which then underpinned the

partnership, with one mentor noting it “helped to identify what was important for the mentee

13

and rule out some options at an early stage” (NHS Mentor). This view was echoed by

mentees too with one stressing that it “helped set the relationship, provided boundaries and

directions and expectations” (Council Mentee)

In this study, 88% of respondents stated that they discussed both personal and professional

objectives early on in their relationship with participants recognising both positive and

negative impacts of this discussion.

positive impacts negative impacts

helping to identify what was important

help guide discussion and set objectives

helped establish ground rules and career

aspirations

objectives set were far too specific

mentee demotivated by discussion

highlighted the diversity of the match more

Table 1: Impact of initial discussions

Where objectives changed the partners saw this as a natural aspect of mentoring and

recognised that mentoring is an evolving form of learning which facilitates evaluation,

reflection and subsequent action as observed by Bhatta and Washington (2003). Thus while

personal and professional objective setting is important, especially when combined with an

initial discussion of each partners’ expectations, a degree of fluidity is to be expected and

encouraged.

14

Driving the Relationship

McGowan, Stone and Kegan (2007) argue that early stage learners generally benefit from

authoritative guidance however the mentees in this initiative were all in managerial positions

(of varying levels) and as such seemed to be content to retain control.

The operation of the mentoring partnerships was shared by the mentor and mentee, with 66%

% of the respondents stating at the outset that the mentee should be the main driver of the

relationship:

“I think both the mentor and the mentee can benefit from the process but the mentee should

be the key driver, taking responsibility for their own development and ensuring it is relevant

and important to their role.” (Council Mentee)

54% of respondents stated that in practice the drive emanated from the mentee, while 30%

felt the mentor drove the relationship, the remainder felt it was driven by the OD/HRD leads.

“To be fair, I would say that both the mentor and mentee drove the process, not the

respective organisations.” (Bank Mentor)

“I did take the lead but the Mentee was very proactive.” (NHS Mentor)

Thus the majority expected the mentee to lead and this was generally translated into practice

in the results, though to a slightly lesser degree. While expectations and reality of the

“driving partner” can differ this is not necessarily a negative outcome; partners should

consider the nature of the relationship, what they are trying to achieve and openly discuss the

impact of this on the respective roles. The fact that hierarchical relationships were not

prevalent in the initiative may have helped to facilitate openness to the relationship as

advocated by Beech and Brockbank (1999).

15

Theme 2: Organisational support

Whilst it is recognised that mentoring is “highly personal” (Delong et al, 2008:115) and

success is therefore often driven by the relationship between the partners, Hegstad (1999)

notes that other variables such as unsupportive cultures and lack of participants can also

influence success and by association failure. The need to provide senior support, recognition

for the additional effort associated with workplace mentoring, management of work demands

and a positive organisational culture is well documented (Allen, 1997; Ragins and Scandura,

1994).

Support for the initiative was mainly viewed as positive with 84% of respondents stating that

they felt supported by the OD/HRD team within their own organisations and 88%

recognising that had received support from their line manager while undertaking the

initiative.

As suggested by Ragins and Scandura (1994) there was evidence that measures of support

from management had been implemented, for example 92% felt they had been allowed

adequate time for meetings with their mentoring partner and 76% felt they had been given

support and time to reflect and prepare.

Laiho and Brandt (2012) also suggest that formalised programmes be supported by training

and coaching of participants; the individual organisations did provide in-house training as

part of the “sign up” process and facilitated sessions were provided for mentees and mentors

at the launch. Nonetheless, 42% of respondents stated they would have benefitted from a

combined event (similar to the launch) half way through the process, to share experiences and

network further. However the use of I.T. was not an evidently strong desire with only 35%

16

commenting that they would like to see wider use, the majority viewing it as counter-intuitive

to the relationship, which was clearly articulated by one respondent;

“[I] think that IT would move the mentoring away from a physical face to face chat through,

personally I would find it detrimental to the process.”

This is an interesting finding given the drive for greater use of IT, including mobile

technology, in the provision of learning within contemporary organisations (CIPD, 2014).

However a small number did comment that they would like further support and guidance

(20% from OD/HRD and 20% from Line Management, this may suggest that there is still a

degree of uncertainty around the requirements of the mentees and the mentors and additional

guidance is sought. This may suggest that regular “touch points” with both mentors and

mentees to underpin their relationships could be useful –this could also be simply a short

email, note and/or call to ascertain how partners are progressing and if they need any support.

Theme 3: Relationships

The importance of the quality of the relationship between mentor and mentee has been

emphasised by Ragins, Cotton and Miller (2000), who state the presence of a mentor alone

does not automatically lead to positive work outcomes. Indeed, the degree of satisfaction with

a mentoring relationship may “overshadow any other design feature of a formal mentoring

programme” (ibid, pg. 1191). This emphasises the perception that the quality of the

mentoring relationship is more important that it’s type; indeed “the level of satisfaction in a

relationship appears to be the key variable” (ibid, pg. 1187).

Length of relationship

Having determined that formal mentoring relationships are usually contracted to last between

6 months and one year; the frequency of meetings combined with the location are depend on

17

the contract agreed by both parties (Poldre, 1994). With the primary research results from this

evaluation of COMI showed clear variations in the length of the mentoring relationships. A

small majority, lasted 6-9months (25%), with 22% lasting over 1 year while 19% lasted only

3 months. This correlates with the opinion of Bauer (1999), cited in Erdem & Aytemur

(2008:55) who state that the relationship “should go on for as long as is required”.

Figure 4: Length of mentoring relationship

Building the relationship

Hezlett and Gibson (2005) argue that “Gaining a better understanding of the interpersonal

processes involved in mentoring relationships will help clarify the conditions under which

mentoring relationships are maximally supportive and satisfying” (p.446)

A number of factors have been considered as important to aid the quality of the mentoring

relationship. Ting and Hart (2004) consider 3 fundamental aspects of mentoring type

relationships to be rapport, collaboration and commitment. Given that over 90% of managers

stated that they felt engaged in the mentoring relationship; this indicates a high level of

commitment overall.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

3 months

3-6 months

6-9months

12 months

over 12 months

Length of relationship

18

Chidiac (2006) and Ely, Boyce, Nelson et al (2010) develop this by emphasising the

importance of trust, comfortableness and confidentiality; with Chidiac (2006); stating that

“confidentiality is a major corner stone of building a trust relationship” (p.14). Indeed,

comfort levels were viewed as important to the COMI relationships, with 100% of the

mentors and 93% of the mentees stating that their level of comfortableness had increased

following the first meeting with their partner. This highlights the importance of the

recognised phases of mentoring, specifically the first two of initiation and cultivation (Kram,

1983).

Allen and Poteet (1999) state that to make the most from the mentoring relationship, the three

key aspects are trust, open communication, and setting standards and expectations and in this

study these aspects were considered by the mentoring partners as important in building the

relationship overall. This aligns with the core areas identified by respondents as key aspects

utilised in the mentoring relationship to increase levels of comfort – namely Developing trust

(DT) Developing Understanding (DU) and process elements (P).

In developing trust (DT), 45% of respondents stated that they perceived a confidential and

safe environment (DT1) during their first meeting; along with the use of open and honest

communication, which is a relatively standard requirement for many types of developmental

relationships. Indeed, CIPD (2014) state that it is vital “to establish guidelines on

confidentiality and information flow early on to develop trust between the individuals”.

Given that mentoring often fulfil needs beyond immediate job boundaries (Hunt and

Michael, 1983; Phillips-Jones, 1982; both cited in Allen and Poteet, 1999), the greater the

degree of open communication within the relationship, the better the opportunity to share

private, personal information that may be helpful in meeting the mentee’s wider goals (Allen

and Poteet, 1999). Indeed, 15% of COMI respondents stated that getting to know their partner

personally (DT2) aided the relationship trust overall.

19

In relation to developing understanding, 15% of COMI respondents stated that setting

standards and expectations (DU1) aided the relationship overall. Other key factors identified

in building the relationship and developing understanding included setting goals and ground

rules (DU2) at the start (15%); which echoes the perception of Gay (1994), who considers

agreed purpose and relationship ground rules as a fundamental requirement in mentoring

relationships. Factors which are perhaps exclusive to the cross organisational nature of the

building the mentoring relationship were the absence of traditional organisational hierarchy

or politics (DT3), outlined by 20% of managers as a key factor in trust. Indeed, this is

considered by Gold, Thorpe and Mumford (2010) as a good base to develop an environment

for support as well as challenge, by eliminating the notions of power, salary and status.

However, as indicated by Clutterbuck and Abbott (2005), internal organisational mentoring

based on developmental models may also attempt to reduce internal power differences, and

therefore benefit from this factor.

Another factor which 15% of respondents felt aided develop their mutual understanding and

thus impacted positively on their relationship, was gaining insight into their partner’s

organisational culture (DU3). Megginson (2000) indicates that culture and the effects of

national, organisational and/or scheme organisers' approaches to mentoring can be

problematic when different expectations are held. Therefore, understanding more about your

partner’s culture is an important premise for the relationship overall, as well as providing

insight into other organisations thus contributing to management learning overall.

Process related aspects (P) which were felt, both by 20% of the COMI managers to build the

relationship overall, included providing adequate time for meetings (P1) and keeping in

regular contact (P2). Both of these elements link to the notion of commitment, highlighted by

Ely et al, (2010; 587) to “reflect the dedication…to perform the work associated with the

20

developmental experience”. A final factor considered here also by 20% of respondents was

utilisation of a neutral venue (P3), away from either partner’s place of work.

Figure 5: Key factors for building the mentoring relationship

Potential and actual challenges of COMI relationship

At the start of the mentoring relationships, respondents were asked what potential challenges

they felt lay ahead. The main concern was the lack of awareness of the other organisation

(44%); which Gold Thorpe and Mumford (2010) consider as a potential paradox in using

external mentors in that while internal partners will inevitably know more about the realities

of the organisation, the potential problem of confidentiality and openness with an internal

individual once again arises. In reality, 59% of respondents perceived this lack of awareness

of the other organisation, to be a real challenge during their mentoring relationship.

Cultural mismatch was considered as another potential challenge by 34% of managers. With

McCauley and Guthrie (2008) acknowledging that organizational systems and cultures can

impact the acceptance and effectiveness of relationships for learning; and Hegstad (1999)

21

proposing that a key barrier to effective mentoring is an unknown culture; this would appear

to be a valid concern. However, in reality, 67% stated this did not pose a threat to their

mentoring relationship, with 33% perceiving this to impact “to an extent” only. Linked to this

was the potential concern from 34% that partners would not be able to relate to each other

experiences across organisations. This translated into 74% stating there was no issue here

during their mentoring relationship, but 26% considering this to be an issue ‘to an extent’.

A final possible challenge was highlighted in the access to the mentoring partners, with 15%

showing initial concern here. However, 30% of respondents found this an actual challenge for

the relationship highlighting a real barrier. This aligns with research by Knights and

Poppleton (2008, cited in Gold, Thorpe and Mumford, 2010) that availability is of key

importance in a coaching or mentoring type relationship, and may impact on the context and

fit of the partnership overall.

Figure 6: Potential and actual challenges in the mentoring relationship

22

Theme 4: Outcomes of the COMI and a critical analysis

Desired and actual benefits for those involved in COMI

Kram (1985, cited in Allen, Eby, Poteet et al, 2004) distinguishes between two fundamental

functions of mentoring, namely career related support and psychosocial support. Both of

these functions were evidenced in the COMI research in relation to desired and actual

outcomes.

Across all organisations, the core reasons for getting involved in COMI were similar and

related mainly to develop particular skills/knowledge ( 56%), more normally linked with

coaching, however this can be part of mentoring (but not vice versa); gaining fresh

perspectives (75%); to increase their awareness of other organisations (41%); and sharing

knowledge, expertise/experience (62.5%), which is identified by Mullen (1994) as a key

mechanism of mentoring (knowledge acquisition and information exchange); and links to a

wider interpretation of social learning theory (Bandura, 1977, cited in Allen, Eby, Poteet et

al, 2004). Enhancing career opportunities was considered a factor for involvement by 31% of

managers; and widen professional network by 47% overall.

The highest perceived benefit gained by all managers involved were increasing their

knowledge of other organisations (82%); sharing expertise/experiences (77%) and gaining a

new perspective (74%), aligning with the first two aspects above from Mullen (1994). In

relation to developing a particular skill, overall 52% of managers agreed this was a personal

benefit, however in the private sector returns, this only equated to 16%, with the majority of

responses here coming from the public sector organisations. On analysis however, the key

“skill” developed by 70% of respondents, was of an interpersonal nature – namely

“confidence”; identifying the emergence of a relational focus of psychosocial outcomes of

this mentoring initiative.

23

Differences between the public and private sector participants were found relating to desired

benefits around widening professional networks where 47% of managers, stated this as a

desired outcome; aligning more to psychosocial support again, and identified by Dreher and

Ash (1990) as mentoring which allows access to channels not usually available. Indeed, 52%

of respondents stated they had widened their professional network, with the benefit perceived

higher by public sector managers (70%) than private sector (50%).

Enhancing career opportunities, which was a desired output for 31% of managers; was

established as an “important role in the mentoring relationship” (Allen et al, 2004: 127),

which obviously align more with the career related support mentoring function (Kram, 1985,

cited in Allen et al 2004). Towards the end of the mentoring relationship, 37% overall felt

they had enhanced their career opportunities.

Figure 7: Desired v Actual benefits for managers involved in COMI

24

Thus psychosocial outcomes appear more prevalent; perhaps not surprising due to traditional

career development mentoring aligning more to in-house organisational mentoring schemes,

where mentees are considered more as career protégés (Allen, et al, 2004).

Benefits to organisations involved in COMI

The relevance of consideration of this factor, relates to the many general benefits of

mentoring identified by Branch,1999( cited in Allen, Eby, Poteet et al, 2004), who noted that

the opportunity of mentoring was a factor to be considered in relation to “Best Company to

work for” criteria.

Figure 8: Possible v Actual benefits to organisations involved in COMI

Indeed, 56% of respondents stated that professional reputation of the organisation was a

possible key benefit for their organisation becoming involved in COMI. At the end of the

COMI, 15% stated they felt their organisation’s reputation was positively impacted due to the

engagement in the initiative. In addition, 56% of managers expressed that the development of

professional networking across organisation and sectors was another potential organisational

25

benefit, aligning with McKinley (2004) who includes networking opportunities as a core

benefit of mentoring. Overall, 20% of managers felt this development of networking had

indeed been achieved.

At the outset, 75% of managers stated that a key benefit to their organisation may be to offer

an additional leadership development opportunity and provide the managers involved with a

fresh perspective. This aligns with the CIPD learning and development survey (2009), which

stated that over 55% of organisations using coaching/mentoring view it as part of their

Leadership and Management Development strategy; and that it helps to build future leaders

(McKinley, 2004). Indeed, 50% of managers involved in COMI stated that at the end of the

process, the key organisational benefit gained was the development of their skills as well as

confidence as managers, identified as a valid benefit to mentoring overall (McKinley,2004).

It is important to note that 15% of managers felt there was no benefit to their organisation in

becoming involved in COMI; showing a variety of perceptions in this area.

The remaining sections in this paper will draw from the above findings to provide key

conclusions and relevant practical implications to assist organisations considering launching

or partnering in a mentoring partnership with external organisations. Finally, consideration

will be given to the research limitations as well as outlining future research direction.

26

5. Conclusions and Practical implications

As a result of this research, 10 core considerations for practice have been identified for

managers, HRD/OD professionals and organisations who may be considering becoming

involved in a cross organisational mentoring programme.

1. Criterion based matching can be effective, but requires careful consideration of the

matching criteria to be used to meet the needs of the organisations and the overall

purpose of the mentoring relationship; and requires close input from the individual

partner organisation representatives. .

2. Clear personal and professional objective setting is vital at the outset of the mentoring

relationship; however a degree of fluidity in this is expected and to be encouraged.

3. While the mentee should drive the relationship, in reality the mentor may have to take

on this role to “get things started”.

4. Support from senior management is paramount at all stages. Organisational benefits

resulting in involvement in COMI need to be considered to ensure this buy in.

5. A mechanism for group communication, reflection and feedback at intervals in the

process needs to be provided.

6. The length of the mentoring relationship varies. Length is not necessarily an indicator

of success. However, organisations may want to consider a formal timeline for the

official process to avoid overloading mentors and/or a limit on the number of

mentees.

7. At the start of the relationship between the partner organisations and the

mentor/mentees, adequate time and care has to be allowed to develop awareness of

27

different settings, cultures, and understand and define key terms to develop a common

language.

8. A comfortable and trusting environment for mentor/mentees relationship is vital for

success; and guidance, training along with a meeting framework may be required to

be provided to the mentors and mentees to assist this.

9. Where projected outcomes did not match those experienced, there were still tangible

benefits noted; again highlighting the importance of the fluidity of the process.

10. While set individual goals, can help frame the initial discussions, cross organisational

mentoring may provide more of a holistic opportunity for self-reflection and

exploration outside the organisation’s parameters and politics i.e. alignment more to

the psychosocial aspects of mentoring.

Research limitations/future research considerations

It is recognised that wider generalisations within this research are limited; the initiative would

require replication with a number of different participants to increase validity. In addition,

specific analysis of the data from individual participating groups would be beneficial i.e.

mentor v mentees; public sector v private sector managers. However as the research is

exploratory in nature there is value in this initial research and analysis that provides potential

for replication within other organisations. Research relating to analysis of perceived

advantages and disadvantages of a COMI compared to an internal organisational mentoring

programme will be provided in the near future. A third layer of research has also been

considered in returning to the managers involved in the COMI (in particular the mentees);

and analysing the perception of the longer term outcomes and benefits of engagement with

28

the COMI. Finally, as a new group of managers from the original three partnering

organisations have recently commenced their mentoring partnerships; replication of the

research previously undertaken would be useful to provide comparative analysis across the

two groups, as well as testing the validity of the findings from the initial research, and thus

provide a greater evidence base for this innovative HRD initiative.

29

References:

Allen, T. (2007), ‘Mentoring relationships from the perspective of the mentor’, in B.R.

Ragins, B.R. and K.E. Kram,. (Eds), The Handbook of Mentoring at Work, Sage, Thousand

Oaks, CA

Allen T. D., Eby L. T. and Lentz E. (2006) ‘The relationship between formal mentoring

program characteristics and perceived program effectiveness’. Personnel Psychology 59 125–

153

Allen, T.D., Eby, L.T., Poteet, M.L, Lentz, E., Lima, L. (2004) ‘Career Benefits Associated

With Mentoring for Protégé’s: A Meta-Analysis’. Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. 89,

No. 1, 127–136

Allen, T. D. and Poteet, M.L. (1999) ‘Developing effective mentoring relationships:

Strategies from the mentor's viewpoint’. The Career Development Quarterly, 48.1, pp 59-73.

Armstrong, S.J., Allinson, C.W. and Hayes, J. (2002), ‘Formal mentoring systems: an

examination of the effects of mentor/protégé cognitive styles on the mentoring process’,

Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 39 No. 8, pp. 1111-1137.

Bandura, A. L. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bauer, T. T. (1999). ‘Perceived mentoring fairness: relationships with gender, mentoring

type, mentoring experience, and mentoring needs’. Sex Roles, 40(3/4), 211-225.

Beech, N. and Brockbank, A. (1999), “Power/knowledge and psychosocial dynamics in

mentoring”, Management Learning, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 7-25.

Bhatta, G. & Washington, S. (2003). ‘Hands up: Mentoring in the New Zealand Public

Service’. Public Personnel Management, 32, pp. 211-227

30

Blake-Beard, S. D. (2001) ‘Taking a hard look at formal mentoring programs: A

consideration of potential challenges facing women’. Journal of Management Development,

20 pp. 331–345

Blake-Beard, S, O'Neill, R, and McGowan, E. (2008), ‘Blind dates?: The importance of

matching in successful formal mentoring relationships’, in BR Ragins, and KE Kram

(eds), The handbook of mentoring at work: Theory, research, and practice, SAGE

Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 617-33,

Boags, R. S. (2004). Implementing a best practices mentoring initiative [Online]. Last

accessed 1/5/15 at http://www.mentoringanalysis.com/cgTour.htm

Branch, S. (1999, January 11). The 100 best companies to work for in America. Fortune, 139,

118–130

Chao, G. (2007), “Mentoring and organizational socialization: networks for work

adjustment”, in Ragins, B. and Kram, K. (Eds), The Handbook of Mentoring at Work, Sage,

Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 179-196.

Chidiac, M (2006) ‘Getting the best out of executive coaching: a guide to setting up a

coaching process’, Development and Learning in Organizations 20.3 13-15.

CIPD, (2009). Learning and Development Annual Survey. London CIPD

CIPD (2014), Factsheet: Coaching and Mentoring. CIPD [ONLINE] Available at:

http://www.cipd.co.uk/hr-resources/factsheets/coaching-mentoring.aspx Accessed 10/3/15

Clutterbuck, D and Abbott, P. (2005), ‘Mentoring as an empowerment tool’. People

Dynamics [Online] Available at:

31

http://clutterbuckassociates.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Mentoring-as-an-

Empowerment-Tool.pdf Accessed 10/3/15

Creswell, J.W. (1998), Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five

Traditions, Sage Publications, London.

Delong, T.J., Gabarro, J.J. and Lees, R.J. (2008), ‘Why mentoring matters in a

hypercompetitive world’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 115-21.

Dreher, G.F., & Ash, R. A. 1990. A comparative study of mentoring among men and women

in managerial, professional, and technical positions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 539-

546

Dobrow, S., and Higgins, M.C. (2005). ‘Developmental networks and professional identity:

A longitudinal study’.  [Special Issue on Mentoring]. Career Development International 10

(6/7), pp. 567-587

Dominguez, N and Hager, N (2013) Mentoring frameworks: synthesis and critique.

International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education Vol. 2 No. 3, 2013 pp. 171-

188

Eby L. T. and Lockwood A. (2005) ‘Protégés' and mentors' reactions to participating in

formal mentoring programs: A qualitative investigation’. Journal of Vocational Behavior 67

pp 441–458

Ely, K., Boyce, L.A., Nelson, J.K., Zacarro, S.J., Hernez-Broome, G. and Whymand, W.

(2010) ‘Evaluating leadership coaching: A review and integrated framework’. The

Leadership Quarterly, 21, pp585–599

32

Erdem, F., and Aytemur, J. O. (2008). ‘Mentoring—A relationship based on trust: Qualitative

research’. Public Personnel Management, 37(1), pp. 55–65.

Gay, Brian (1994) ‘What is Mentoring’ Education and Training, 36(5) pp4-7

Gold, J., Thorpe, R and Mumford, A. (eds) (2010) Handbook of Leadership and Management

Development. Aldershot: Gower.

Hegstad, C. D. (1999), ‘Formal mentoring as a strategy for human resource development: A

review of research’. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 10: 383–390

Hegstsad C. D. and Wentling R. Organizational antecedents and moderators that impact on

the effectiveness of exemplary formal mentoring programs in Fortune 500 companies in the

United States Human Resource Development International 8 (2005) 467–487

Hezlett, S.A. and Gibson, S.K. (2007), ‘Linking mentoring and social capital: implications

for career and organization development’, Advances in Developing Human Resource, Vol. 9

No. 3, pp. 384-411.

Higgins, M. C. and Kram, K. E. (2001) ‘Reconceptualizing mentoring at work: A

developmental network perspective’. Academy of Management Review 26, pp 264–288

Higgins, M. C., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). ‘Constellations and careers: Toward understanding

the effects of multiple developmental relationships’. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22,

223–247

Homitz, D.J. and Berge, Z.L. (2008) ‘Using e‐mentoring to sustain distance training and

education’, The Learning Organization, Vol. 15 Iss: 4, pp.326 - 335

Klasen, N. & Clutterbuck, D. (2002). Implementing Mentoring Schemes: A Practical Guide

to Successful Programs. London: Butterworth Heinemann

33

Kram , K. (1983) ‘Phases of the mentor relationship’. Academy of Management Journal, Vol

28, No1,

Kram, K. (1985), Mentoring at Work: Developmental Relationships in Organizational Life,

Scott Foresman, Glenview, IL.

Kram, K.E. & Ragins, B. (2008), “The Landscape of Mentoring in the 21st Century” In

Kram, K.E. & Ragins B.R. (eds)  Handbook Of Mentoring at Work Theory, Research, And

Practice,   Sage Publications

Laiho. M. and Brandt, T. (2012),’Views of HR specialists on formal mentoring: current

situation and prospects for the future’, Career Development International, Vol. 17 Iss 5 pp.

435 - 457

Levinson, D. (1978), The Seasons of a Man’s Life, Random House, New York, NY.

Mason, C., (2005), “Briefing session for Mentors and Mentees. Mentoring – Theory and

Practice” accessed on 1/5/15 at http://www.mentoringgroup.com/html/mentor_41.htm /

Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach, 3rd, Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Megginson, D., (2000), ‘Current issues in mentoring’. Career Development International

5.4/5 pp 256-260.

McCauley, C. D. and Douglas, C. A. (2004). ‘Developmental relationships’ . In C. D.

McCauley, ed. and E. Van Velsor (Eds.), The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of

leadership development (pp. 85–115). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

McCauley, C.D. and Guthrie, V.A. (2008), ‘Designing Relationships for Learning into

Leader Development Programs’ in Ragins, B.R. and Kram, K.E (eds), The handbook of

34

mentoring at work: Theory, research, and practice, SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand

Oaks, CA

McGowan, E. M., Stone, E. M., & Kegan, R. (2007). A Constructive-Developmental

Approach to Mentoring Relationships. , in BR Ragins, and KE Kram (eds), The handbook of

mentoring at work: Theory, research, and practice, SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand

Oaks, CA,

McKinley, M. (2004) ‘Mentoring Matters – Creating, Connecting and Empowering’. AACN

Clinical Issues, Volume 15 Number 2 pp205-214

Morrison, A. Piip, J., and Short, T (2013), ‘Workplace mentoring revisited: formal or just

smart casual?’ in T. Griffin, (ed.), '21st National Vocational Education and Training Research

Conference “No Frills”: refereed papers', NCVER, Adelaide, paper presented at the 21st

National Vocational Education and Training Research Conference, [Online]. Available at:

http://www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv57137 Accessed 10/03/15 

Mullen, E.J. (1994), “Framing the mentoring relationships as an information exchange”,

Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 257-81

Payne, S. C., & Huffman, A. H. (2005). A longitudinal examination of the influence of

mentoring on organizational commitment and tenure. Academy of Management Journal, 18,

158-169

Poldre, P.A. (1994) ‘Mentoring programs: A question of design’. Interchange, 25(2) pp 183-

193.

Poulsen, K.M. (2013) ‘Mentoring programmes: learning opportunities for mentees, for

mentors, for organisations and for society’. Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol 45 No.

5 pp. 255-263

35

P-Sontag, L, Vappie, K, and Wanberg, C. (2008), ‘The practice of mentoring: Menttium

corporation’, in B.R Ragins and K.E Kram (eds), The handbook of mentoring at work:

Theory, research, and practice, SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA,

Ragins. B.B., Cotton, J.L and Miller, J.S. (2000) ‘Marginal Mentoring: The Effects of Type

of Mentor, Quality of Relationship and Program Design on Work and Career Attitudes’. The

Academy of Mng Journal Vol 43, No 6 pp 1177-1194

Ragins, B.R. and Scandura, T.A. (1999), “Burden or blessing? Expected costs and benefits of

being a mentor”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20, pp. 493-509.

Sosik J. J., Lee D. and Bouquillon E. A. Context and mentoring: Examining formal and

informal relationships in high tech firms and K-12 schools Journal of Leadership and

Organizational Studies12 (2005) 94–108

Thomas, K.M., Willis, L.A. & Davis, J. 2007, "Mentoring minority graduate students: issues

and strategies for institutions, faculty, and students", Equal Opportunities International, vol.

26, no. 3, pp. 178-192.

Ting, S. and Hart, E. W. (2004). ‘Formal coaching’ in C. D. McCauley, ed. and E. Van

Velsor (Eds.), The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of leadership development. (pp.

116–150). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wanberg C. R., Welsh E. T. and Hezlett S. A. Mentoring research: A review and dynamic

process model Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management 22 (2003) 39–124

Zachary, L.J. (2005), Creating a Mentoring Culture: The Organization’s Guide, Jossey-Bass,

San Francisco, CA.

36